Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Shyamalendu Das vs Eastern Railway on 26 September, 2022
' ©) ry ' 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of Order: 26.09.2022 Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member | (0.4/1593/2022 ( Kolkata } a SHYAMALENDU DAS) s--«*™" 0.A,/1594/2022 ( Kolkata ) ~ ALOK GUHA RAY (0.A,/1600/2022 ( Kolkata ) BISWAJIT SARKAR .. Applicants 1. Union of India, service through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001. 2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001. 3. The Chief Works Manager, Carriage & Wagon Workshop, Eastern Railway, Liluah, P.O Liluah, Howrah -711204. 4. The Workshop Personnel Officer, Carriage & Wagon Workshop, Eastern Railway, Liluah, P.O Liluah, Howrah - 711204. --Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, counsel Ms. P. Mondal, counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Paul, counsel ORDER(ORAD Per: Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (J):
This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section. 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is Tord 'involved this matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.
2. As common question of facts and law govern these matters, these cases are being heard out analogously, upon due notice and with consent of all the sides, to be disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of brevity, facts of OA. No, 1593/2022 is being delineated and discussed hereunder:
3. This application has been preferred to seek the following reliefs:
"a) An Order do issue directing the respondenis to act and proceed in accordance with the provisions of law.
6} Impugned Office Order dated 14.05.2022 issued by the respondent No. 4 an behalf of the respondent No. 3 is not tenable in the eye of law and as stich the same should be quashed.
o) An Order do issue directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Order and Judgment dated 08.07.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 188 of 2006 affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court at Caloutta in WPCT No. 278 of 2008 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india vide Order and Judgment dated 08.08.2019. in Civil Appeal No. 8293/2010 and thereby to grant total 6 increments in ferns of the relevant having the same degree and other incumbents having BME degree along with all the consequential benefits including interest accrued thereon.
d)} To grant Costs and incidentals.
8} Certify and transmit the entire records and papers peraining to the applicant's case so that after the causes shown thereof conscicnable justice may be done unto the applicant by way of grant of relieis as prayed far in (a), (b) and (sc) above:
f} Any other order or orders as-the Hon'ble Tribunal deerns fit and proper."
4, Heard Id. counsel for both sides.
5. Applicant is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 where his prayer for grant of two (2) advance increments for passing AMIE SecA before entry to Railway, hag been rejected.
Applicant contends thst he has passed the AMID Part A examination in 1998 prior to joining of railway service, he has cleared Part B in 1991 while in service upon after obtaining permission. A certificate was iggued to him as such. The applicant is entitled to 6 advance increments . he has been granted four increments, out of 6 increment, and the first twa increments are still due.
6, Applicants have sought for benefits of the order passed by this Tybunal and a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narugopal Ghoshal and
- Ore. in CLA no. 8293/2010, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"The respondents numbering seven are employees of the Indian Railways. in order to improve the skills and acquire further qualifications, the Railways @s the employer brought in schemes for the special incentives for acquiring qualifications during the course of service at the awn cost of the employees.
in furtherance of the aforesaid, the relevant incentives scheme is contained in the latter datec! 29.5.1989, the relevant terms of which are as under:
"Cn passing the relevant examination, the following awards shail be given to be railway employee /apprentices; {i} for passing part (1) or 'A' Intermediate or Pre- final examinations- iwo advance increments. ,
(i) for passing part (i) or 'B' or final examination our advance increments."
xx "OR MH XX aan . : RX The claim of the respondents is predicated on a plea of parity with other similarly situated persons. It is thelr say that two such other respondents are Raman Malik and Dilip Saha. These two persons amongst others acquired BME degree (degree examination) which a course of five years. The respondents cleared AMIE examination which is treated as the 'equivalent to a
-Jdegree exarnination. There is no dispute that beth these examinations are treated as equivalent fo each other. These two persons were, however, granted benefit of six such advance increments as the course of BME Is a consolidated course.
NX X® AX NS xX NX The piea of the leamed counsel for the respondents in a nutshell is that if on completion of a substantive part of the course and only completing a small part of the course after joining service six increments have been granted as In the case of BME examination, there is no reason why persons like the respondents who completed substantive part of the course of part 8 after joining the service should be denied the benefit.
aN KX AN. xX aX xX On hearing learned counsel for the parlles, we are of the view that there is some merif in what is contended by learned counsel for the respondents. We may note that both the impugned orders of the Tribunal and of fhe High Court are predicated on a rationale of equality rather than real interpretation of the circular, We may note that on a clear interpretation of the circular what was granted to the respondents was what they were entitled te. The complication has arisen on account of the appellant's having granted the benefit of six. increments to such person who completed the BME exatnination, Logically taking the aforesaid course. contents inte consideration, persons who had cleared BME examination would have been antitled to, at best, four advance increments as incentives. There is no other circular issued or brought to our notice as to why in case of a consolidated examination like BME six advance increments should be granted.
in view of the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusion of the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below. We, however, make it clear that had the rule been uniformly applied, there would have been no basis for the plea of loss of increments to the respondents. | The appeal js dismissed.
Parties to bear their own casts.
The appellants to take necessary steps for grant of benefit fo the respondents within a maximum period of three months from today."
7 | Ld. Counsel for the apphcants at hearing would draw my attention te the certificate issued to the applicant upon ecempletion of Soction/Part A and B of the examination, as contained in Annexure A/Landa list of the Workshop staffs where his name appears below one N.G. Ghogal, in whose case the Hon'ble Apex Court granted 6 advance increment for having passed Part B.
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that the elaim of the respondents stating that the benefits of the judgement in Narugopal Ghoshal supra, is to be restricted to the applicant therein, is a judgement in rem not in personem, 'Since the applicants deserve identical benefits, and a representation made to the respondents to that effect is also. pending, whereas the respondents have rejected his claim enly on the ground that he is not suitable for the benefits, as benefit of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, should be restricted to the applicants in the said case only, - {strongly feel that the applicants have been able to make out a case meriting ~ grant.of 2 advance increments that are left to be released. _ 10, Accordingly, -yespondents are directed &i reconsider the representation dated 19.12.2019 afresh and pass appropriate order in the 'A light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision supra as well as the order passed by this Tribunal. For the purpose, applicant shall forward copy of the order passed in such Q.A alongwith copy of the order passed today.
il. In the event, nothing stands in the way, 2 increments that are stil due shall be released in favour of the applicants and te issue appropriate order within 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. All the above O.As are disposed of accordingly.
(Bidisha Banerjee) Member (J)